An artist's rendering of the proposed condominium tower at 555 Washington St., which is on the same block as the Transamerica Pyramid, as seen from Columbus Avenue. The tower would be double the current height limit and cast shadows on two protected citAn artist's rendering of the proposed condominium tower at 555 Washington St., which is on the same block as the Transamerica Pyramid, as seen from Columbus Avenue. The tower would be double the current height limit and cast shadows on two protected city-owned parks.

Certainly, the former Board of Supervisors president did all he could to torpedo the project, including camping out in Supervisor David Chiu's office during the hearings so he could be involved in the negotiations.

Yet every single supervisor - both Peskin's longtime allies and those who were initially inclined to support the condo project - voted against it. 10-0.

Sure, it's handy and politically expedient to blame Peskin, an unapologetic foe of development who earned his stripes fighting new projects. But that's not what led to the unanimous rejection of the building's proposed environmental report, an early step in the approval process.

What killed the project's chances were the backers, who underestimated how to get things done in San Francisco. They were overconfident and didn't build a strong coalition. The result was that they lost, and lost big.

"Was Aaron Peskin involved? Yes," said Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who says he wanted to back the tower. "But that's not the entire reason it lost."

"The 10-0 vote speaks for itself," said Chiu, president of the Board of Supervisors and an early opponent. "This was not a political vote."

It didn't have to be a loser. Residential housing in that area is a good idea. It would add vibrance to the area, encourage a neighborhood feel, and - despite what opponents say - would fit in with other Financial District buildings. But the presentation of this project was not handled well.

Where did it all go wrong? Let us count the ways:

First, Peskin certainly understands the levers of power in the city. His Telegraph Hill Dwellers is a powerful lobbying group that is deeply opposed to development. There are those, like Michael Theriault, secretary-treasurer of the Building and Construction Trades Council, who think Peskin has so much City Hall clout, he can kill a development like this at will.

"Given the political realities of this city, I don't know that this project ever had a chance," he said.

But c'mon. Peskin, who did not return requests for comment, gets to express his opinion and to lobby for his point of view. Other groups could have mounted their own campaigns. Where were they?

Elsbernd said there was little response from supporters in the unions - who have jobs at stake - and nearby Chinatown civic leaders.

"Compared to most projects, I did not hear much at all about this," Elsbernd said.

It's that familiar narrative in the city: Let loud, well-organized special interests control the agenda and then complain when they get their way. If you want to take on the Hill Dwellers, who can be a high-handed, obstinate bunch, you need to, as Mayor Gavin Newsom said in a recent speech, organize and get down to City Hall.

It was also a mistake to assume that the supervisors would rubber-stamp the environmental recommendation from the Planning Commission.

"I told the developer that we needed to work out the details of the project before we ... voted on it at the board," Chiu said. "I told him this was how it was going to play out, and it did."

The developers tried a Hail Mary in the final two hours before the Board of Supervisors' vote, suggesting that the development team would agree to cut the building's height in half to 200 feet. But it was too little and too late and obliterated any support among the supervisors. How could they vote on the project's environmental report when they were presented with a whole new building?

The developers also made a key mistake when they said they would abandon their project if the vote didn't go their way.

Elsbernd said during the hearing that it was like negotiating "with a gun to our heads." After all, if the development team has already invested $6 million, why not spend another $1 million to redo the environmental report?

That's what developers should do. But this time they should rethink the presentation. Done correctly, they can still carry this off. Peskin can't win them all.